Thai laws on body armor put journalists at risk

For the past several weeks journalists and media
organizations in Thailand have been preparing for a fresh round of
confrontation between anti-government protesters and government security
forces. An attempt to paralyze the nation's capital through a protester-led,
month-long shutdown began
today.

Having covered previous
political confrontations in Thailand, including attempts by the same group
of protesters to storm Government House in November, and observed first-hand
the savagery with which elements of People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC)
protest group have attacked security forces and intimidated and assaulted
journalists, I have questioned with increasing urgency how to continue working
safely.

While the basic rule of covering conflicts safely by not
standing between opposing forces is inviolable, recent clashes in Bangkok have
shown that the danger area is apt to change rapidly and with little or no
warning. That was the case during the previous round of street protests by opposing
groups in 2010, where two journalists
were killed
and several
others seriously injured by gunfire originating mainly from areas
controlled by the Royal Thai Army.

As a younger photojournalist working in areas of conflict, I
tended to shy away from using body armor due to the physical strain of the
added weight and decreased mobility. However, given the randomness in which
firearms have been used by PDRC protesters in this conflict and by the Thai
army in 2010, coupled with increasing age and slower mobility, I've determined
that body armor is essential for my street-level reporting.

While there is an abundance of body armor available for
purchase at various outlets in Bangkok, including from shops located behind the
Ministry of Defense and at the Chatuchak Weekend Market, a perfunctory
examination shows the items are sub-standard and ill-equipped to deflect
gunfire.

Yet my attempts to import proper body armor has been thwarted
by bureaucracy and labyrinthine import controls. The Thai Customs Department
advised that I would first need to acquire import licenses from three separate
government agencies, including two different Ministry of Defense departments.
Thailand's Arms Control Act stipulates that a permit is required to possess
such items, with fines and imprisonment penalties for non-compliance.

Telephone calls and a visit to the Defense Energy Department
showed that not only did officials not know how to proceed with my application,
but that no media organization or individual in Thailand had ever applied for
such a permit.

The officer in charge of processing permit applications was
at a loss over how to proceed and it was only after several hours of discussion
that a decision was reached that he would accept an application to forward to
his superiors.

While the official expressed his understanding as to why I
required the items as well as his hopes that my application would be approved,
he and others tasked with processing my request also ventured their personal
opinions that my application would most likely be denied.

The vast array of documents originally requested in support
of my application included: A criminal background check of my media company's
director(s); A copy of the identification card/passport and home register of
the company's director(s) and attorney; the Power of Attorney of the company; and
the Power of Attorney of where the items are to be stored. Under Thailand's
Arms Control Act there is no difference between importing and possessing a Kevlar
helmet and importing and possessing munitions.

Clearly the majority of these documents are not going to be
available to most journalists, and with a criminal background check requiring
about 45 days to process, my application is not going to be considered quickly.
Letters I sent to Suranand Vejjajiva, secretary-general to the prime minister,
and Deputy Prime Minister Phongthep Thepkanjana regarding the issue have so far
gone unanswered.

Until allowances are made for the legal import and
possession of body armor, Thai and foreign reporters will be forced to either
break Thai law by possessing and wearing the items without a proper permit; play
Russian roulette with costly items sent by mail, subject to seizure and
forfeiture by the Thai Customs Department; or continue to be exposed to lethal
threats while reporting.

John Le Fevre is the deputy editor and Thailand and greater Mekong subregion editor for The Establishment Post.

I only see people smiling at 99% of the pictures of this protest. Yes, there have been violent spots, but your mischaracterization of the protesters sounds like if you are not here watching it with your own eyes.

The bullets that killed both the police and the protesters were confirmed by the Crime Scene Investigation unit to have come from top of the building. First, the police try to say that there were no police on top of buildings. Then there were video clips from a flying drone from one of the foreign reporters that show a group of police on top of the building. A week later, after overwhelming video clips captured, the police commander publicly admits that there were police on top of the building and admits that the police were violently attacking the parked cars and cars carrying water and medical supplies and volunteer nurses inside the car. All the violence captured throughout every clips from foriegn reporters and citizens can only see violence from the men in uniforms which, at first, the police said was not a real police squads, but later admits due to overwhelming evidence. So, I agree that journalists should have armor but not to protect them from the protestors, but from the government.

This is quite interesting. I currently sell body armor in the USA and have been thinking of moving semi-permanently to Bangkok. It's my hope that i can bring over my business as well. If you could help point me in the right direction I would be more than willing to get the permits for importation and then could provide you with what ever armor you specified.

Facial, an analysis of the photos and locations of the police on the top of the building have conclusively shown that they were not in a position to have shot the policemen, not even close as there are several buildings blocking the line of fire. Anyone who thinks the PDRC is a peaceful non-violent group is smoking opium. They are constantly spewing violent, misogynistic rhetoric on their stages, and their hard core supporters have been seen many times engaging in violent behavior. Not to say the Reds are angels, but anyone trying to paint the clearly fascistic PDRC as some kind of benevolent group fighting for good is deluded. In any other country a group fighting to stop elections and appoint their own 'people's committee' and appointed prime minister would be seen as the backwards fascists they are.

Hi, I do believe this is an excellent website. I stumbledupon it ;)
I will return once again since i have saved as a favorite it.
Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and
continue to guide others.